Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 178 – Appeal against GS 2022 art. 155: Pulpit Access

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal from Ottawa (Jubilee) (8.6.3.3).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: It is an appeal against a decision of GS 2022, and it was received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    The Ottawa (Jubilee) CanRC states at the outset of its appeal that it is committed “to a literal interpretation of the Church Order and our responsibility to oversee our congregation’s practices not expressly regulated by it.” It then articulates the following four points:
    • 3.1.1     “We did not agree to bind ourselves to follow the traditions of men or to uphold the common practices of a plurality of churches. (See Belgic Confession Art 7.)
    • 3.1.2     We gave our “yes” only to a literal reading of the church order.
    • 3.1.3     We use the articles within the church order as individual articles. We do not seek to interpret or read into an article what is already regulated by another article.
    • 3.1.4     We take full responsibility to oversee our congregation’s local practices for anything not expressly regulated in the church order.”
  • 3.2    Ottawa (Jubilee) appeals GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 (art. 155) erred by combining three separate appeals regarding RSE 2019 art. 11 into one judgement, “thereby failing to consider Ottawa-Jubilee’s unique circumstances of geographic isolation.” They explain further that because of its geographical isolation from its sister churches, it is “difficult to arrange consistent pulpit exchanges.” They state that this has been an issue since 2018 and that their “pastor had/has a young family and found himself traveling over 1000kms per month to make exchanges work with pastors in Southern Ontario.”
    • 3.2.1    Ottawa (Jubilee) offers the following grounds:
      • 3.2.1.1   Since its unique circumstances were not considered, it was not heard and thereby justice was not rendered.
      • 3.2.1.2   Its motives were impugned when GS 2022 denied its appeal based on arguments presented in the appeals of the other two churches which were not germane to its own appeal (specifically about inviting three specific men to preach on Ottawa (Jubilee)’s pulpit with the concurring advice of Classis Central Ontario (CCO).
  • 3.3    Ottawa (Jubilee) appeals GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 (art. 155 gr. 4.4.1) erred by denying their appeal based on the need for classis involvement in granting pulpit access.
    • 3.3.1    Ottawa (Jubilee) offers the following grounds:
      • 3.3.1.1   The article used as grounds to deny Ottawa (Jubilee)’s appeal stated that classis should be involved in granting pulpit access, Ottawa (Jubilee) had demonstrated that it had already sought the advice of CCO and church visitors appointed by CCO thereby fulfilling the requirements outlined.
  • 3.4    Ottawa (Jubilee) appeals GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 (art. 155 gr. 4.4.2 ) erred in regarding the impact of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) rules on local consistory authority.
    • 3.4.1    Ottawa (Jubilee) offers the following grounds:
      • 3.4.1.1   By drawing implications from the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship and using them to interpret the Church Order, GS 2022 took away all authority from the local consistory over its own pulpit and dictated who may and who may not be invited to preach (cf. CO Art.15).
      • 3.4.1.2   Ottawa (Jubilee)’s decision to invite 3 specific men to preach on its pulpit with concurring advice of CCO does not open the door to any preacher from the respective federations of these men invited.
  • 3.5    Ottawa (Jubilee) appeals GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 (art. 155 gr. 4.4.3) erred by judging against Ottawa (Jubilee)’s appeal based on the contents of appeals submitted by other churches.
    • 3.5.1    Ottawa (Jubilee) offers the following ground:
      • 3.5.1.1   This article refers to arguments made by the other churches and contains nothing germane to their own appeal.
  • 3.6    Ottawa (Jubilee) appeals GS 2025 to judge that GS 2022 (art. 155 gr. 4.4.4) erred by offering a suggestion instead of providing lawful grounds for the decision.
    • 3.6.1    Ottawa (Jubilee) offers the following grounds:
      • 3.6.1.1   Since as GS 2022 acknowledges, “our current church order does not have a specific provision regarding pulpit access for guest ministers from non-sister churches,” guided by a literal reading of the Church Order, Ottawa (Jubilee) has the responsibility to guard its own pulpit;
      • 3.6.1.2   GS 2022 uses circular reasoning to defend “present practices”;
      • 3.6.1.3   A general synod has no task to offer suggestions to the churches, only to deliver judgements based on lawful grounds;
      • 3.5.1.4   GS 2022’s assertion that the onus to update the church order is on the church deviating from “present practices” should be the exact reverse: the onus should be on those who believe something is missing in the church order.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    Re Observation 3.1: Ottawa (Jubilee) identifies for itself four principles of interpreting the Church Order. However, the self-identified principles of Ottawa (Jubilee) are not of themselves binding on the rest of the federation because such principles have never been proposed to or evaluated by much less agreed upon by the churches at a general synod. The Canadian Reformed Churches have recognized various principles which underlie the articles of our Church Order and which are given expression therein; these have been articulated clearly at GS 2004 art. 76. Further, the principles used by our ecclesiastical assemblies to understand and apply the Church Order have also been observed in the acts of those assemblies, duly reviewed and even refined by the churches over many decades by way of appeals and overtures. Ottawa (Jubilee) has not proven how these principles are in error and so it remains these principles that the churches make use of when interpreting the Church Order.
  • 4.2    Re Observation 3.2: GS 2022 was presented with three appeals of the same decision of RSE 2019. It is the prerogative of a synod to decide to deal with all three together. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon a broader assembly to ensure that the decision rendered clearly takes into account all the arguments made by the appellants, factoring in the unique circumstances of each. GS 2022 failed to take into account all the unique arguments presented by Ottawa (Jubilee).
  • 4.3    Re: Observation 3.3 – GS 2022 (art. 155 gr. 4.1) also spoke of the “relevant principle of classical involvement in granting access to the pulpit (e.g. CO Art. 4.B.1 & 2) that can give guidance concerning the matter of giving pastors of non-sister churches temporary access to the pulpit.” However, Ottawa (Jubilee) demonstrated that it worked with the principle of CO art. 4 by seeking and receiving concurring advice from classis. In this Ottawa (Jubilee) followed the appropriate ecclesiastical route available to them.
  • 4.4    Re Observation 3.4: Ottawa (Jubilee) incorrectly refers to CO 15 as regulating whom a consistory may invite to preach. In reality, CO 15 is set in the context of regulations concerning a minister within our federation (art. 4–21) and as such forbids a minister from taking it upon himself to preach (or administer the sacraments) in “another church” without the consent of the consistory of that church. Further, GS 2022 was correct to refer to the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (CO 50) and to draw implications from them for if it was understood that local consistories could already invite any minister from any church they wished, there would be no need to have such a rule for the churches in common.
  • 4.5    Re Observation 3.5: Although it is true that the arguments of GS 2022 cited here are not a specific response to the appeal of Ottawa (Jubilee), the grounds presented still provide helpful considerations for Ottawa (Jubilee).
  • 4.6    Re Observation 3.6: Ottawa (Jubilee) is correct that it is not the first role of general synod to provide suggestions or advice but simply to render judgement. Nevertheless, it can be beneficial to the churches when a general synod, in rendering judgement, at times provide some direction for how things might be done “decently and in good order.”

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To sustain the appeal.

ADOPTED

G. Boot abstained as per CO 32.